Smith v. Bear, Inc., 419 S.W.3d 49

Smith Services owed Lake Express approximately $26,000 for fuel purchases from 1999–2002, with the account closed for nonpayment in 2002 and interest accruing thereafter.
There was no written agreement, no personal guarantee by Smith, and no security for the debt; the fuel account was recorded by a Lake Express employee without formal documentation.
Smith Services dissolved administratively in 2003; Smith continued to purchase fuel in Smith Services’ name until 2005, and no shareholder meetings or annual reports were kept.
Lake Express filed suit in 2006; claims included fraud and piercing the corporate veil; the trial court dismissed claims against Smith Heating and Smith, remanding for direct liability issues against Smith.
On remand, Smith proceeded pro se; summary judgment on liability was granted August 17, 2010, finding Smith personally liable to the extent of any shareholder loans and corporate asset transfers; damages and costs were determined September 1, 2010, totaling about $133,198.60 (roughly $90,863.22 in debt plus $42,330.38 in costs/attorney fees).
This appeal challenges pro se representation of the dissolved corporation, the liability finding, the bench trial for damages, and the damages/costs award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pro se representation validity	Smith contends Smith Services was improperly represented.	Smith represented himself; corporation could be represented only by counsel.	Remand granted for Smith Services due to improper representation; Smith individually remains liable.
Liability of Smith personally for Smith Services’ debts	Smith should be liable under constructive trust for corporate debts as sole shareholder.	There were genuine issues about asset transfers and veil-piercing; liability should be contested.	Summary judgment affirmed; Smith personally liable to the extent of corporate assets/assets loans, under constructive trust principles.
Right to jury trial on damages	Damages should be decided by jury since they are legal in nature.	Damages derived from an equitable constructive-trust restitution; bench trial appropriate.	Bench trial proper for equitable restitution; no jury right on damages.
Amount of restitution and attorney fees	Lake Express proved $90,868.22 in debt and $42,330.38 in fees/costs.	Smith offered no contrary evidence; contested amounts were not proven.	Court did not err in awarding restitution, interest, and attorney fees; findings supported by uncontroverted evidence.

Frazee v. Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co., 393 S.W.2d 778 (Ky.1965) (sole exception to the right to practice law is self-representation)
Kentucky State Bar Association v. Tussey, 476 S.W.2d 177 (Ky.1972) (corporation cannot be represented by nonprofessionals)
Bear, Inc. v. Smith, 303 S.W.3d 137 (Ky.App.2010) (reemphasis on piercing the corporate veil and direct liability issues)
Reeves v. East Cairo Ferry Co., 289 Ky. 384, 158 S.W.2d 937 (Ky.1942) (assets received by a shareholder while dissolving corporation held in constructive trust)
Crest Coal Co., Inc. v. Bailey, 602 S.W.2d 425 (Ky.1980) (one fair and reasonable conclusion supports bench trial when only equitable restitution exists)
Schultz v. General Elec. Healthcare Financial Services, Inc., 360 S.W.3d 171 (Ky.2012) (equitable issues not triable by jury unless agreed)